It’s not press activity that the public wants dealt with, it’s immigration.

November 19, 2012

The Guido Fawkes blog has a very interesting thread about how much the public wants to see the press regulated post Leveson, based on a survey by free speech and free media advocates.

It makes interesting reading in so far as it shows that immigration, although not the number one concern is right up there on about 70%, just below crime concerns. Regulation of the Press however, struggled to get above approximately 12-15% according to the graphic published by MediaGuido.

The possible shackling of the press which sadly the National Union Of Journalists leadership appears to be backing, will not be good for the UK. OK if there was Government regulation of the press a few celebrities may be able to get redress for a stringer going through their bins for evidence of naughtiness, but it would hamper journalists if they tried to investigate governmental or corporate wrongdoing, both in the local and national press and those publishing digitally.

Although I believe that the press and commentators should be responsible and not libel individuals that doesn’t mean that the promotion of journalistic responsibility should be in the hands of those politicians and their appointees who have the most to lose from the existence of a free press. Think for example how little we would have known about the parliamentary expenses scandal or the bullying by trade unions of their members or the gob-smacking waste of resources committed by local government, if statutory press regulation had been in force when those stories broke? I believe that none of these stories would have seen the light of day had some politico been able to whine about ‘privacy’ and get investigations shut down.

The Leveson enquiry is loved by the Left, because the Left hates freedom. It hates freedom of the press, it hates economic freedom and it hates freedom of thought.

Never forget that it was the National Union of Journalists who wrote the policy that governs reporting of issues of race, faith and immigration, subsequently imparted in Journalism colleges to new hacks, that basically follows a Leftist line. I believe that the phenomenon of MONA (Men of No Appearance) seen so often in local newspapers when a member of a visible minority commits a crime but the description of the offender is censored, is down to the actions and policies of the NUJ. Sorry guys but I want criminal activity reported truthfully and not bowdlerised to fit in with Leftist views of race, religion and culture. A crim is a crim no matter what the colour of their skin or the confessional group a person belongs to.

The NUJ cannot be trusted either with issues of journalistic ethics nor with matters of press freedom because of their behaviour in actively censoring reports of sensitive issues and the actions of the NUJ’s leader Michelle Stanistreet’s backing for a ‘regulatory framework’ for journalism similar to that which exists in the Irish republic.

Leveson and its aftermath will be a disaster for British media, we should be looking at greater freedom to speak rather than less. Many of us are perfectly able to discern the difference between say a genuine story and the ravings of tin foil hatters. It should be for the public to decide on what media they wish to consume and the market to provide it. It is not the politicians, many of whom have been proved to be untrustworthy in aspects of their lives and careers, to decide what we should read.

Leveson is the Trojan Horse of a political Left that is despised by many ordinary British citizens for the damage they’ve done to the UK. Don’t let these same Lefties cut the balls from our Press, to prevent reports of their activities. Government control over the press is never good. Look how long Britain’s state-owned broadcaster sat on allegations about sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile if you want some guide as to how much state controlled media should be trusted.

The NUJ’s leader calling for a similar type of state control as exists in the Irish Republic. I certainly don’t buy her assurances that such a system would not affect journalistic freedom, but then freedom of the press is kryptonite to the political Left